Anciano Frágil y Calidad de Vida / Frail elderly people and Quality of life

Objetivo. Conocer el grado subjetivo de deterioro de la calidad de vida en ancianos con criterios defragilidad.Diseño. Estudio observacional, descriptivo, transversal.Emplazamiento. Atención Primaria, Zona de Salud.Participantes. Ancianos con criterios de fragilidad. Criterio de exclusión: ancianos frágiles con deteriorofísico/psíquico que impidiera cumplimentar los cuestionarios o negativa a participar (total8,5%).Mediciones principales. Cuestionario de calidad de vida Nottingham Health Profi le (NHP) para lavariable principal. Otras variables recogidas: sociodemografi cas (edad, sexo y convivencia), númerode enfermedades crónicas y de fármacos consumidos y el cuestionario de capacidad funcional de Barthel.Resultados. Edad media de 81,4 años, 67,5% mujeres, 33,7% vivían solos, número medio de 3,2patologías crónicas y de 4,7 fármacos consumidos. El porcentaje de deterioro global en el NHP fuede 25,6 (IC95% 22,8-28,3), siendo dicho deterioro variable en cada una de las dimensiones: energía(26,1; 21,2-31,0), dolor (20,5; 16,8-24,3), movilidad (32,5; 28,6-36,5), reacción emocional (23,7;20,4-27,1), sueño (33,8; 29,0-38,5) y aislamiento social (17,2; 14,3-20,1). El grado de deterioro globalse asoció, de forma estadísticamente signifi cativa, con mayor edad, convivencia fuera del núcleofamiliar, mayor número de patologías crónicas, mayor consumo de fármacos y menor capacidadfuncional.Conclusiones. Existe un grado de deterioro subjetivo importante en la calidad de vida del ancianofrágil. Parece justifi cada la inclusión de la valoración de la calidad de vida subjetiva en la valoración integral de este tipo de pacientes

Objective. To determine the subjective deterioration in quality of life in elderly people who met frailty criteria.Design. Cross-sectional, descriptive, observational study.Setting. Primary Care, Health AreaParticipants. Elderly people with signs of frailty. Exclusion criteria: frail elderly people who, due to their physical or mental impairment, were unable to complete the questionnaires or did not want to take part(total 8.5 %).Main measurements. Primary variable: Nottingham Health Profi le (NHP) quality of life questionnaire. Othervariables were: socio-demographic data (age, gender and co-residence), number of chronic diseases, numberof drugs being taken, and Barthel’s index for functional capacity.Results. The mean age of the participants was 81.4 years, 67.5% were women and 33.7% lived alone.The mean number of chronic diseases was 3.2 and the mean number of drugs being taken was 4.7. Thepercentage of overall deterioration on the NHP was 25.6 (95% CI 22.8-28.3), This percentage deteriorationvaried among the dimensions: energy (26.1; 21.2-31), pain (20.5; 16.8-24.3), physical mobility (32.5; 28.6-36.5), emotional reactions (23.7; 20.4-27.1), sleep (33.8; 29-38.5) and social isolation (17.2; 14.3-20.1). The degree of overall deterioration was associated, in a statistically signifi cant manner, with older age, co-residence outside the family, higher number of chronic diseases, higher number of drugs being taken and lowerfunctional capacity.Conclusions. There is a signifi cant level of subjective deterioration in the quality of life in frail elderly people. Including the subjective evaluation of quality of life in the overall assessment of this type of patient would seem justified (AU)

Pérdida de peso en varón de 20 años / No disponible

No disponible

Violencia doméstica contra la mujer visión desde la adolescencia / Adolescents’ point of view of domestic violence

Objetivo. Conocer la opinión de los adolescentes escolarizados sobre la violencia de género.Diseño. Estudio descriptivo transversal mediante cuestionario anónimo, autocumplimentado.Emplazamiento. Marco comunitario. Atención Primaria.Participantes. Estudiantes de ESO y Bachiller de un Instituto Público.Mediciones y resultados. El cuestionario recoge conocimientos y opiniones sobre violencia doméstica.Contestaron 525. Edad media de 14,87 años (DE 1,96), hombres el 51,5%. Conocían algún casode maltrato 21,4%. Consideraron la violencia doméstica como muy frecuente 79,8% (IC95% 76,06-83,11) y como maltrato predominante el físico 55,9%. Consideraron con menor frecuencia maltrato:“control de la vestimenta” (28,3%), “romper objetos con valor sentimental” (35,8%) [Hombres 42,8%vs. mujeres 28,6% χ2 11,36; p<0,05] y “empujones” (60,9%) [67,8% hombres vs. 53,9%; χ2 12,30;p<0,01]. Para el 78,5% (IC95% 73,06-80,44) nunca estaría justifi cado (hombres 74,4% vs. 83,2% χ27,85; p<0,05). El 71,8% consideraba los hábitos tóxicos como la principal causa. Un 6,5% no creíaque fuera delito. El 73,6% pensaba que la mujer continúa con el agresor “por miedo” y el 26,2% “poramor”, con diferencias según sexos (χ2 3,81; p=0.05). El 23,6% opinó que la prevención se basaríaen reducir el paro y el 33,7% que no es prevenible.Conclusiones. Nuestros adolescentes presentan un grado aceptable de conocimientos sobre violenciadoméstica, aunque precisen más información sobre determinados aspectos. Parece existir unamayor tolerancia de las chicas hacia la violencia. Es necesario introducir este tema en su formacióndesde diferentes ámbitos (incluido el sanitario) para modifi car y prevenir determinadas actitudes haciaeste problema

Objective. To know scholarized adolescents’ opinion of domestic violence.Design. Transversal descriptive study based on an autocomplete anonymous questionnaire.Setting. Community framework and in the context of the public health area.Participants. ESO and Bachiller students from a public secondary school.Measurements and results. The questionnaire included 17 items related to the knowledge and theopinion of domestic violence. It was given to 900 students, but only 525 answered it. The averageage of the students was 14.87 years old (ED 1.96), 51.5% were male. 21.4% knew people who hadbeen affected by domestic violence. 79.8% (IC95% 76.06-83.11) considered that domestic violenceoccurred very frequently, and 55.9% (regardless of sex) thought that domestic violence was occurringphysically rather than mentally or sexually, e.g. The situations considered less frequently as domesticviolence were: “control of clothes” (28.3%), “damaging objects with sentimental value” (35.8%) [42.8%men vs. 28.6%, χ2 11.36, p<0.05] and “pushing” (60.9%) [67.8% men vs. 53.9%, χ2 12.30, p<0.01].78.5% were the opinion that domestic violence would never be justifi ed (74.4% men vs. 83.2%, χ27.85, p<0.05). 71.8% thought that toxicological problems would be the main reason for domestic violence.6.5% did not believe that domestic violence was a crime. 73.6% thought victims go on livingwith the aggressor because of “fear”, followed by “not wanting to split up the family” (50.3%). 26%thought that they were still together because of “love”, but with differences in male and female opinion(χ2 3.81, p=0.05). 23.6% believed that the prevention of domestic violence would be related to decreasingunemployment, whereas 33.7% think domestic violence could not be prevented.Conclusions. The adolescents who took part in the research present an acceptable knowledge ofdomestic violence, although they may need more information about certain aspects such as sometype of covert violence. It seems that girls are more tolerant towards domestic violence. We believe itis necessary to introduce this topic in their upbringing from different areas (e.g. the health system) inorder to modify and prevent specific attitudes towards this problem (AU)